Poor people shouldn't have more than two kids?

iPlop

King Felix wrote: »

Agreed.

Nobody should have more than two kids.

Two adults, two kids. Zero population growth.

In todays environment if you and your partner/wife are not working and are on benefits ,you should be banned from having children ,because it's not fair on them to be brought up in a poor household and not fair on the tax payer.But if you gain employment the ban would be lifted!

stovelid

Septic Leper wrote: »

Ibecause it's not fair on them to be brought up in a poor household

Do you think everybody that posts on here were brought up in wealth?

What if you're in the 30s and you lose your job. Do you stop trying to have kids until you attain a certain income again?

Notorious97

Notorious97 wrote: »

You cannot remove a person’s right to give birth as many times as they see fit. Like another poster said it is not china we live in! I wouldn’t be surprised if a conservative government in the UK bring this in, party for the elite by the elite.

She's arguing that the taxpayer should not fund poor people to have as many kids as they feel like. God forbid we ever have to live in a world where people actually take responsibility for their own decisions, eh? Once you're relying on benefits to support the children you have, why on earth would should you have the right to have more?

clived2

Schism wrote: »

If there were less people on social welfare do you really think you'd be paying less tax?

Thats a very poor argument, We might not be paying less tax, however
that money could be used for education, etc



How about everybody is allowed to have as many children as you want,
However you only get all allowances/welfare for the first 2,
This seems very fair to me,

stovelid

clived2 wrote: »

that money could be used for education, etc

Like the gigantic budget surpluses of the boom years?

Under governments like ours, the reason that people want to save money on social spending is because surplus money (see above) ends up back in pay-packets in the form of lower taxes.

iPlop

stovelid wrote: »

Do you think everybody that posts on here were brought up in wealth?

What if you're in the 30s and you lose your job. Do you stop trying to have kids until you attain a certain income again?

Yes you should! look at the state of the country ,why bring kids into a situation that you cannot really afford to have them when your living on the bread line?

henryporter

By allowing everyone (rich and poor and inbetween) to have all the childer they want it makes people take life for granted - look at those kids in the Kerry car crash for instance. Point is that as the world resources become more depleted it is becoming necessary to regulate resource users in the same way that other things are regulated by those we elect to lead us. The elephant in the room is that poor people have loads of babbies as an income provider because of our ridiculous social welfare system, and also because they don't know any better.

youcancallmeal

You should only be allowed to have one child, if you break this law then you should be locked up for 30 years in a high tech maximum security underground prison. In this prison you wouldn't be allowed dream and there would be massive overcrowding. Anyone stepping out of line would be punished by activating a device implanted in their stomach which causes pain, in extreme situations of misbehavior this device will explode causing death. Also the prison director would be a cyborg that looks a little bit like Marty Morrissey. Any questions just ask

Tordelback

henryporter wrote: »

By allowing everyone (rich and poor and inbetween) to have all the childer they want it makes people take life for granted - look at those kids in the Kerry car crash for instance.

WTF?

smokedeels

"If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged world." - Dr. Henry W. Kendall

Yes, we need to halt population growth, but population control shouldn't be based on class.

Notorious97

Leonard Shy Fencing wrote: »

She's arguing that the taxpayer should not fund poor people to have as many kids as they feel like. God forbid we ever have to live in a world where people actually take responsibility for their own decisions, eh? Once you're relying on benefits to support the children you have, why on earth would should you have the right to have more?

I know that, common sense should obviously prevail if you cannot afford kids, use the withdrawal method before she gets knocked up :pac:

bleg

smokedeels wrote: »

"If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged world." - Dr. Henry W. Kendall

Yes, we need to halt population growth, but population control shouldn't be based on class.

Poorer people tend to have more kids.

dlofnep

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's not "free" for the taxpayers who have to foot the social welfare bill

Did you ever consider that these children might grow up to be high earners, and contribute back to society?

What do you suggest if a poor family has 3 kids? That they be fined? That they have their kid taken off of them? What exactly do you suggest?

King Felix

Notorious97 wrote: »

I know that, common sense should obviously prevail if you cannot afford kids, use the withdrawal method before she gets knocked up :pac:

As Billy Connolly said of the withdrawal method...

"At the point of ejaculation, there isn't a herd of wild horses that could make my arse go in that direction."

Donkey Oaty

landsleaving wrote: »

部重傷的18歲港人梁頌學，醫護人員小心翼翼自醫療專機將梁頌學搬運至救護車，歷時二十多分鐘，救護車剛關上車門，在警車開路下移送梁頌學至屯門醫院

WorldLingo translates that as: "Severe wound 18 year old people of Hong Kong Liang Song studies, the medical care personnel studies cautiously from the medical special plane Liang Song the transporting to the ambulance, the lasted more than 20 minutes, the ambulance just closed the vehicle door, transferred Liang Song under the police vehicle opening to study to Tunmen Hospital."

Not sure what to make of that, but I wish Liang Song a swift recovery/fair trial/happy graduation.

Pherekydes

King Felix wrote: »

Agreed.

Nobody should have more than two kids.

Two adults, two kids. Zero population growth.

Equals population decline. The replacement rate is about 2.1 children, but you probably knew that.

Hence, the minimum number of children to have is 3.

Schism

clived2 wrote: »

Thats a very poor argument, We might not be paying less tax, however
that money could be used for education

Very true and I agree, in an ideal world of course.

However I was simply making the point that if a certain area of tax expenditure were to decline significantly it most certainly wouldn't lower your taxes.

PeterIanStaker

Notorious97 wrote: »

I know that, common sense should obviously prevail if you cannot afford kids, use the withdrawal method before she gets knocked up :pac:

Ever heard of condoms or the pill?
Bit more effective than the withdrawal method, as the great Billy Connolly mentions above.

Having better sex education for schools (not in Ireland of course, because sex is evil and dorty) and greater availability of contraceptives would help.

Homer

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Most people I know become poor after they have the kids.

Why don't they feckin stop so I'll never understand the mentality of people who cannot afford to properly raise one child let alone a small football team.

macgrub

She fits right in to our 'problem solving' right wing media .
Even if she is right, does she suggest how we do it?
Make men/women sterile? If they did have a child, Moses basket-river ?

Etonian-scum more like.

smokedeels

bleg wrote: »

Poorer people tend to have more kids.

Rich people consume more resources, kill all the rich and poor people can spew out as many kids as they want.

iPlop

The problem is the elite see everyone under them as poor people and they think there is far to many people around;)


“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine

macgrub

macgrub wrote: »

She fits right in to our 'problem solving' right wing media .
Even if she is right, does she suggest how we do it?
Make men/women sterile? If they did have a child, Moses basket-river ?

Etonian-scum more like.

It's fairly clear that she's suggesting that parents shouldn't receive further help from the government after 2 kids. But obviously it's more fun to imply that she advocates forced sterilisation and killing babies.

SugarHigh

clived2 wrote: »

Thats a very poor argument, We might not be paying less tax, however
that money could be used for education, etc



How about everybody is allowed to have as many children as you want,
However you only get all allowances/welfare for the first 2,
This seems very fair to me,

Is it fair on the children born after the 2nd?

You realise child benefit is there for the sake of the child not the parent and the reason why we have child benefit is because as a society we decided it wasn't fair for any child to grow up in poverty and not have the same chance in life as someone born from a wealthy family.

King Felix

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hence, the minimum number of children to have is 3.

The .1 is a little awkward alright.

3 kids would be population growth.

Fine if you have the resources to cover it. We could probably manage here in Ireland but on a global scale, I think not.

Sentid

In all fairness she has a point. A man down the road from me is only 45, his wife is 38. Their eldest is eighteen and just got a girl pregnant. THey have a 15 year old daughter and 3 more sons. They have never worked in their lives except for running a failing chipper where they didn't pay tax. He is renting a house which the county council is paying for and gets thousands in childrens allowance. He also apparently has a "disability" and is claiming for that too. It's people like this who are bleeding the country dry. Their children are out at all hours drinking and doing nothing worthwhile. I'm only 14 and went to school with the girl, and she is already the village slut. Thanks a million Fianna Fáil for all these stupid allowances for the scum of Ireland

Butterflylove

dlofnep wrote: »

Did you ever consider that these children might grow up to be high earners, and contribute back to society?

What do you suggest if a poor family has 3 kids? That they be fined? That they have their kid taken off of them? What exactly do you suggest?

We might finely get out of all this debt we have then,

I think if people want to have more kids all well for them state should limited benefits to three, after that the familys should support themselves,
they get medical cards not as if they cant get contraception for free?

fonecrusher1

She's a nobody who seems to be pissed off that she left it too late to have kids so who cares what she thinks.

But is that bad an idea? Look at the hoards of useless scummers that plague our cities? What about the constant cycle of feral mini-louts bursting out of jeremy kyle couples who go at each other like rabbits as soon as their physically capable of breeding?
Its just a continuous loop of anti social, lazy, parasites.

Maybe if they we're confined to having 2 children the country might get back on its feet quicker. Instead of thousands of them haaavin anudder baaabeee to get even more dole money.

We all have a right to have kids & there are plenty of politicians screwing the country but come on folks we all know theres a certain portion of our population who are absolutely raping the welfare system.

danbohan

dlofnep wrote: »

Is this communist China we live in, or the free world?

problem with a lot of " free world " in ireland is that they expect everybody else to pay for their kids !

D-Generate

In Western Europe we are in for major population decline problems in the coming years. We simply are getting too old and are not having enough children to provide for the older generations.

Japan is a case model for this, its population is geriatric by world standards. To quote from the Gartman Letter

What did Madoff and Stanford teach us? They taught us that you can keep a ridiculous Ponzi scheme going for a very long time as long as you have one ingredient - more people entering the scheme than exiting the scheme. In Japan, last year, the working age population peaked. From now on they are in an inextricable secular decline. So the rubber is meeting the road there, today. How are they going to fund themselves going forward? Here is an interesting point. Their revenues are roughly 40 trillion yen and their expenses are
roughly 97 trillion yen. They are spending more than twice they make. If you just look at interest expense, debt service and social security expenditure, you add these three line items together, it is more than their revenue. They are already at the Keynesian endpoint.......

For Japan to get out of their long time economic decline they will have to increase their population or open their doors to immigration (a big no-no in Japanese society). Unless they do that they are never going to get out of their recession because every yen earned goes towards supporting the elderly pretty much!

France is the country in Western Europe currently heading towards this situation. They too don't have the best immigration policies and 1.6 children is the average amongst middle class families I think.
They are now providing incentives in the form of tax breaks to encourage couples to have more children and it is working. We should take the same approach in the UK and Ireland. Its not about preventing "poor people" from having children but encouraging employed couples to have children. The incentive of tax breaks and reduction of child benefits would help achieve this.